Literary hermeneutics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following important information is missing from this article or section:
Individual references No. 7 to 43 are incomprehensible: Bibliography is incomplete!
Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

Hermeneutics (Gr. Hermeneutiké techné ; German: art of interpretation, translation ) describes both the literary- philological art theory of text interpretation and the philosophical theory of interpretation and understanding in general. In contrast to text-interpreting hermeneutics in general (interpretation of legal , religious, historical, in short: prosaic or scientific texts), " literary hermeneutics " deals specifically with literary - that is, poetic - texts (the so-called "beautiful literature"). In the "aesthetic interpretation", which makes the own symbol system of poetry (in contrast to the symbol system of prosaic-scientific texts) the object of reflection , literary hermeneutics does justice to its object. The interpretation is to be understood as the completion of the experiment.

Basics of literary hermeneutics

The aim of literary studies or, more precisely, literary historical hermeneutics is the appropriate understanding or interpretation of a literary text . The literary hermeneutical interpretation of the text has a different goal than the normal reader, whose primary interest is usually not the historical context and who is usually content with an individual or subjective understanding of the text.

A fundamental problem in any process of understanding a literary text is the fact that there are basically no fixed facts that can be inferred or accessed without a new process of understanding. This so-called hermeneutic circle means that in a methodically guided, intersubjective textual interpretation of a text (or part of a text), the reader must also have understood the related texts b, c and d, which in turn can only be understood, even if a was understood.

In normal communication situations, such a fundamental problem is rarely relevant or can be easily resolved by simply asking. If, however, the author and the reader of a text are in different historical, linguistic or cultural contexts or environments, this fundamental problem is very difficult to eliminate, since here the cultural and other differences between author / text and reader “keep coming back Evidence of the non-triviality of the effort to understand. "

Nevertheless, the hermeneutic literary text interpretation assumes that through an "accumulating perpetuation" of such processes of understanding as well as through various methodological approaches and strategies that can secure the understanding and interpretation results of the respective text interpreter in a way that leads to a plausible and intersubjectively accepted text interpretation or design. In doing so, plausibility criteria for intersubjectively acceptable interpretation results are formulated, which particularly emphasize the following points:

· Assumption of an (author) intention as a regulative idea

· Philological controlled procedures (eg. As text comparisons, review of word usages, translations, etc.)

· Inclusion of the reception history

· Reconstruction of the context in which the text was created, including the (historical) horizon of expectations

· Use of (literary) scientific terminology and knowledge

· Orientation towards argumentative conclusiveness and consistency .

In hermeneutically oriented literary studies, it is assumed that such or comparable methods and strategies can transform the hermeneutic circle into a possibly non-lockable spiral.

However, in the development of literary studies in the 20th century there are various, more or less clear or well-founded attempts or approaches to reject this form of literary hermeneutics. While the rejection of hermeneutic theories of interpretation is quite widespread in current literary theory and methodology, the method of hermeneutic text interpretation in scientific interpretation practice is "hardly eliminable" according to Spörl.

Different interpretations or interpretation results that follow such procedures capable of reaching a consensus are also considered possible and equivalent as long as they meet the above criteria.

Philological and aesthetic interpretation

Interpretation (lat. Interpretatio: interpretation, translation, explanation) denotes the process and also the result of the interpretation or interpretation of oral, written and generally symbolic and symptomatic utterances on the basis of understanding or hermeneutic efforts; it spans the area of ​​communication of human life in general (everyday hermeneutics is one of its areas). In the narrower sense, interpretation means the interpretation of written (theological, legal, historical, literary, etc.) works in a methodically reflected or scientifically disciplined, not just naive, and in accordance with the hermeneutics as the "art theory of understanding", with the basic rule of “Hermeneutic circle”, leading in a spiral from part to whole and back; in the narrowest sense, “interpretation” means the interpretation of works of art.

The literary interpretation (of a scientific nature) differentiates between purely "philological interpretation" of statements in need of explanation, that is, semantic and grammatical clarification of contemporary or past texts that have become alien to us, and " aesthetic interpretation"

Logically speaking, the philological interpretation precedes the aesthetic interpretation; The philological interpretation, a necessary prerequisite for any understanding of the text, explains the incomprehensible passages of a contemporary or traditional text, starting with the simplest word explanations (“Fiale”: turret, “machine” in an 18th century poetic text: Deus ex machina , theater machinery , wonderful resolution of a plot node). The philological interpretation makes - in a methodologically more reflective and enhanced form - basically only the attempt to understand, which is simply a matter for every understanding reader: It approaches the meaning of the text by digging into the language, form Reads in the author's world of ideas and ideas. This departure from the text, however, does not leave the immanence of the text or the interpretation inherent in the work in the logical sense, because it returns with the knowledge gained to the text - as the parameter of text-adequate understanding. Understanding is logically the prerequisite for approval or criticism. “In hermeneutics” one looks for “not the truth, but the understanding of the words.” “Communication does not only succeed with consent, but rather with understanding, because what it does is to open up the freedom to agree and to contradict.”

Interpretation according to Umberto Eco

In his considerations on the limits and validity of interpretations, Umberto Eco distinguishes between an intentio operis , an intentio auctoris and an intentio lectoris . It is true that without the engagement of the recipient ( intentio lectoris ) there can be no interpretation of a work (and its intentio operis ) at all , but the recipient's intentions must focus solely on the reconstruction of the meaning of the work and must not become independent; if this happens, there is a “drift”, a distance from the meaning of the work (intentio operis).

According to Eco, the most important criteria for interpretation are “ economy ” and “ coherence ”. The “text as a parameter of its interpretations” must always be considered. The "suspicious interpretation", always necessary to a certain extent for the formation of hypotheses when interpreting, can, however, degenerate into a paranoid delusion of suspicion, especially when a form of "miracle addiction" drives the moment of suspicion to the extreme. For Eco, the “hermetic drift” is particularly noticeable among representatives of post-structuralism (among Derrida epigones or “Derridists”) and advocates of deconstruction . The “hermetic drift” could be “defined as a case of connotative neoplasm”, a “cancerous growth of connotation”. The intentio lectoris ultimately overrides the intentio operis . Eco does not see a parallel to Peirce's “unlimited semiosis” , since its prerequisites are completely different; the “free interpretation” must not refer to them, it follows the “arbitrariness of the interpreters”, who “knock the texts right until they take on the form that [these] need for their purposes”.

Ecos' introduction of the term “use” (uso) of a text, which is based on a “subordination of the text to the intentio lectoris ”, is illuminating . So true Maria Bonaparte Poe -Deutung as "use", as the author used the works to draw conclusions about Poe's private life. In any case, “use” is clearly given if the interpreter further composes the original text, breaks it down into individual elements, changes it for directing purposes or the like. This is not an interpretation, nor is it a “purely subjective interpretation”, a mere “opinion”.

Interpretation according to ED Hirsch

ED Hirsch (Eric Donald Hirsch, Jr.) has shown that a work or a sequence of words does not yet have a specific meaning ( meaning , verbal meaning ). The phrase “I'm going into town today” can have four different meanings, depending on the emphasis. Only the instance of a consciousness, namely that of the author's consciousness, charges the word sequence with a certain meaning. For Hirsch, the intentio auctoris is contained in the text, so to speak , and cannot be separated from the text. What the author means (with his text), however, has nothing to do with what "went through his head" while writing, what sensory experiences led to his text. (As a rule, this cannot be determined at all.)

Hirsch makes a distinction between meaning and “sensory experiences”, be it production or reception. Hirsch's most fundamental and most important distinction is that between "meaning" and "significance". "Meaning" arises from a "relationship" between the sense of the text and any context. On the side of the recipient, the sensory experiences and private associations play no role in the interpretation of the sense of the text; in any case, they must be disciplined and separated from what the text contains of questions (and implied answers). This is also the reason why Ter-Nedden radically separates “interpretation” from “reception” (with all its subjective and private associations and affects). The “philological research process” can, “unlike the reception process”, “run as an accumulative learning process”. “Receptions are incorrigible.” The process of appropriation of literature, i. H. the reception process (which of course also includes misinterpretations) cannot be closed and cannot be delegated to experts.

For Hirsch the “meaning” must first be elucidated before further considerations about its “meaning” can be made; for this step - a more comprehensive "interpretation" - everything comes into question with which the (interpreted) text can be related: namely the life of the author, his other works, his psychological disposition, the corresponding epoch , the corresponding genre , the cultural , social , intellectual , religious and media history (and more). It is the amalgamation of “sense” and “meaning” that is the evil that has led to most errors in interpretation theory and practice. Only the intention of the author (as it is reflected in the text) can apply as a parameter or norm for a tendentially “correct” interpretation; if one leaves the setting of the norm to the recipient (and his individual "reading"), then one loses every criterion for a valid interpretation.

In the question of the implications, Hirsch recognizes the main task and main difficulty of the interpretation: What are the intended, intended implications and which are not relevant for the specific text or even subjectively-privately associated? For him, the solution lies in the attempt to establish the "necessary associations" through the context of explicit utterances, the coherence or meaningfulness of the individual moments as a whole and the appropriateness to the corresponding object, type of meaning and, more comprehensive, to prove the corresponding “genre” as necessary and intended. (“Bark” is only implied if “root” refers to the object “tree” - and not, for example, to “grass”.) Here, only “probability” and never absolute “certainty” can be achieved. An author can never be aware of all of his implications, consequently the intention of the text or author also includes the "unconscious" implications. “There is a difference between the meaning and being conscious of this meaning”. (You don't have to be aware that you are asking for pity when you say you have a headache - just as you don't need to be aware that the box you are talking about implies six sides and 24 right angles.)

According to Hirsch, the meaning of a text is limited, reproducible and unchangeable. (Just as a red object remains the same, even if it makes a different impression in front of a different colored background.) Therefore Hirsch turns against the representatives of autonomism, historicism and psychologism , i.e. H. against the notion that a text is autonomous - independent of its author (as TS Eliot and Ezra Pound claimed), subject to historical changes and different for each recipient (since each recipient approaches the text with his or her own sensory experiences).

Poetic and prosaic texts

The reception of poetic works is fundamentally different from the reception of prosaic (everyday, scientific) texts. Poetry does not have the form of knowledge , but the form of experiencing or remembering ; it is, as it were, the second version of our experience, which can only ever be accomplished by the individual ego; accordingly, the reception of poetic texts can only be understood by the experiencing individual self. (I only ever know my own toothache.)

Poetry is about suffering with, laughing with, trembling with, hoping with, cursing with (within the framework of our culture of experience, which is to be distinguished from the culture of knowledge - as specifically script-related). What is meant here are the aspects of the experiencing individual ego, the individual ego as the bodily, temporal, sensual, sexual, mortal, speaking being that we humans are. This co-experiencing is made possible or generated by the form of poetry, the specific symbolic language of poetry, namely through images and sounds, moods and exciting situations, gestures and facial expressions, tragic or comic courses of action, perspective and narrative attitude, etc. etc. What we experience in reading or on the occasion of a theatrical performance cannot be verbalized without loss in prosaic language - that is, with non-aesthetic means - least of all in scientific terminology. In poetry the content cannot be separated from the form of its appearance.

The poetic code is therefore (like the specific performance of the arts in general) irreplaceable and indispensable, and cannot be replaced by anything (prose). This is the reason for the need for an "aesthetic interpretation". One cannot interpret and translate the connotations and metaphors, the sounds and narrative perspectives in the sense of the "philological interpretation", one can only reflect on their peculiarities and their function, one can almost only point to these phenomena in a serving manner, offer perception aids. Such an “aesthetic reflection” (so as not to have to say “interpretation”) enriches our “aesthetic experience”. "Experience" is the appropriate term here, because it is not just about the "understanding of the words", but about experiencing, feeling, affecting, i. H. the emotional moment of reception.

The untranslatability of poetic works in practical and scientific prose is therefore due to the diversity of the codes or symbol systems; While understanding in prosaic contexts is only about bridging information differences within the same system of symbols, attempts to interpret, interpret, translate poetic works deal with the problem of mediating between two codes or systems of symbols, for which the term " Reflection ”proves to be the appropriate one. An interpretation in the sense of a translation is not possible here for the exegete.

The interpretation provides the reader with knowledge, but “philological knowledge [...] must not congeal into knowledge for the sake of its subject matter”. The reception process has to be undertaken again and again. For example, unlike the interpretation of legal or historical texts, it is only of transitory importance if a riddle or a hermetic poem is placed alongside its "decoded image". The poem - like any poetic work - is like a “lock that snaps shut again and again, the explanation must not want to break it”.

Capturing the “aesthetic” side of poetic texts is therefore something inevitable, something that also affects the simplest manifestations of everyday poetry (“freak out”, “tree-long guy”, “piercing sun”); So it has nothing to do with aestheticism (in the so-called "ivory tower"), which refers only to the "Höhenkammliteratur" or to their most advanced works and which is committed to an aesthetic L'art pour l'art position that defines the context who seeks to deny poetry with the reality of life or at least to push back. The moment of subjectivity (the individual-ego-like experience) that is effective in aesthetic interpretation has nothing to do with that “merely subjective” opinion and belief that only relates to private associations. The subjectivity of poetic language, simply because it is language, is intersubjective, communicable, divisible (“shareable”) and in this it is ultimately “objective” again. It is true that the subject of poetry is different from the subject of knowledge, thought, judgment, and discourse; the subject of poetry - the ego-like and person-centered appropriation of the world - is an experiencing subject that absorbs experience, the subject of knowledge is Descartes ' s "cogito" - as a product of the written culture with which the world of knowledge began. The knowledge culture is necessarily cleansed of the poetic, of connotations and metaphors , of irony , of the personal, of the emotional, of the subjective, of situational dependency , etc. (as Jack Goody , Ian Watt and Eric A. Havelock showed). Literature as a self-representation of concrete subjectivity, as an ego-centered, personal representation of the ego and the world, goes beyond the discursive language of information or science, if only because of its gestalt quality; Form is an integrative, non-removable component of this symbol system. The aesthetic interpretation reflects this.

Work-immanent interpretation

The "work-immanent interpretation" is often related exclusively to the historical (German-language) appearance of the interpretation practice after 1945 ( Emit Staiger , Wolfgang Kayser et al.), As it primarily relates to the nature of the work and no longer to the context of society (the " people ") of the Third Reich ): But, logically speaking, the “work-immanent interpretation” is the prerequisite for more far-reaching, work-transcendent interpretations or interpretations, since it both determines the immanent philological meaning and mostly reflects the immanent aesthetic wealth of relationships and forms. If the immanence of the text is misunderstood, the work-transcendent interpretation, the relationship of the work to the author, cultural and social history, etc., must draw the wrong conclusions. The “work-immanent interpretation” is therefore not a “method” of interpretation, but necessarily a first step towards understanding; in this sense there are no “methods of interpretation” at all, only “methodical interpretation”. Since every text raises different questions, it also determines the type of approach. What is repeatedly described as a psychological or sociological "method" is either an interpretation of psychological or social aspects of the immanence of the text, the nature of which may contain psychological or social implications (as "necessary associations"), or, secondly, interpreting in a broader sense, searching for the “meaning” (Hirsch) of the sense of the text for psychological or social phenomena outside the text, or even “using” a work or several works for topics or theories outside the text of literary studies lie.

Cross-work interpretation

What one could call a cross-work or work-transcending interpretation or interpretation can (a) use the work as material and source for historical, sociological, history of ideas, religious history, psychological and other interpretations or explanations - and also for (non-literary) theory formation . (In this case, the work is ultimately not the actual object of knowledge, but only material for other scientific goals.) It can (b) examine the work for development, theoretical intentions or psychological dispositions of the author and (c) literature-related the work for genre, Relate the style, motifs of contemporary literature or contemporary or earlier works and specimens of the genre; it can (d) establish overarching connections between work and cultural and social history as well as socio-psychological conditions - and all possible contexts.

The interpretation, based on Marxist literary theory , tried to understand, explain, or even “derive” the work as a phenomenon of the “superstructure” from the economic “base”. ( Georg Lukács )

Modern “ antihermeneutics ”, referring to Michel Foucault , Jacques Lacan or Jacques Derrida, often moves within the framework of the anti-Enlightenment paradox of wanting to understand antihermeneutically (ie not understanding), even if they pretend to be in their “discourse analyzes” and “deconstructions “Independent of the subject, purely and objectively, only to expose“ structures ”and“ discourses ”and to reveal hidden meanings to the supposedly narrow-minded hermeneutic mind. The so-called antihermeneutics, e.g. B. represented by Hörisch, Eco accuses the "drift" according to a wildly rampant intentio lectoris , which develops connotations to de facto subjective systems of alleged implications.

Susan Sontag - like Hans Magnus Enzensberger - branded the insistence on the “correct interpretation” as patronizing, authoritarian, bureaucratic and unrealistic behavior (in school and university). Susan Sontag attacked the unmasking and deciphering hermeneutics (of Marxist and Freudian origin) as a text-violating procedure and advocated an “erotic art” instead of a “hermeneutic” of the same. Such "eroticism", however, cannot replace an effort to understand interpretation - and every reading obeys its logic. Also a reflected or scientific interpretation cannot deliver "eroticism" per se, but can - and should - the interpretation - as an "aesthetic interpretation" - aids in perception for that "eroticism", ie the pleasure in the text and the experience potential of the text, provide.

History of hermeneutics

The history of interpretation or hermeneutics is derived from theological exegesis, striving for a philosophical and allegorical interpretation of the Bible. In the 18th century theological and profane exegesis were combined to form a scientific, historical-hermeneutic interpretation, the theory of which led from Friedrich Schleiermacher to Wilhelm Dilthey and finally to Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas . Gadamer located the basis of the hermeneutic knowledge, which is considered inevitable and universal, in language and dialogue. According to him, understanding takes place in the “fusion” of one's own with the foreign “horizon”.

A specifically literary theory of interpretation is still in its infancy. In contrast to the post-structuralist theses of the “death” of the author (and of the “individual”) and the end of “meaning”, ED Hirsch has considered the reconstruction of the author's intention. Like Umberto Eco, he adheres to the author's authority that gives meaning , which also includes the unconscious, or to the intentio operis , while HR Jauß assumes that the interpretation of the unlimited potential for meaning of a work, reserved for the divinatory power of the intentio lectoris , cannot be closed . Jauß and his reception theory (which fundamentally differs radically from Iser's reception theory, which is based on intended blanks ) are based on the assumption that every literary text has dynamics that remain historically alive. As the interpretation progresses - according to Jauß - the original unfolds "a wealth of meaning that by far exceeds the horizon of its creation".

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Uwe Spörl: Hermeneutics (as a literary method). In: Uwe Spörl: Basislexikon Literaturwissenschaft . Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn u. a. 2004, ISBN 3-506-99003-9 , pp. 129f.
  2. ↑ Uwe Spörl: Hermeneutics (as a literary method). In: Uwe Spörl: Basislexikon Literaturwissenschaft . Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn u. a. 2004, ISBN 3-506-99003-9 , pp. 129f. See also Jeremy Hawthorne: Hermeneutics. In: Jeremy Hawthorne: Basic Concepts of Modern Literary Theory · A Handbook . Translated by Waltraud Korb. Francke Verlag, Tübingen / Basel 1994, ISBN 3-8252-1756-6 , pp. 119f.
  3. ↑ Uwe Spörl: Hermeneutics (as a literary method). In: Uwe Spörl: Basislexikon Literaturwissenschaft . Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn u. a. 2004, ISBN 3-506-99003-9 , pp. 129f. See also Jeremy Hawthorne: Basic Concepts of Modern Literary Theory · A Handbook . Translated by Waltraud Korb. Francke Verlag, Tübingen / Basel 1994, ISBN 3-8252-1756-6 , p. 121f.
  4. ↑ Uwe Spörl: Hermeneutics (as a literary method). In: Uwe Spörl: Basislexikon Literaturwissenschaft . Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn u. a. 2004, ISBN 3-506-99003-9 , p. 130. See also Rainer Baasner: Hermeneutik. In: Horst Brunner, Rainer Moritz (Hrsg.): Literaturwissenschaftliches Lexikon · Basic concepts of German studies . 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-503-07982-3 , pp. 159-164, here pp. 162-164.
  5. ↑ See Uwe Spörl: Hermeneutics (as a literary method). In: Uwe Spörl: Basislexikon Literaturwissenschaft . Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn u. a. 2004, ISBN 3-506-99003-9 , p. 130. The remarks by Rainer Baasner: Hermeneutik. In: Horst Brunner, Rainer Moritz (Hrsg.): Literaturwissenschaftliches Lexikon · Basic concepts of German studies . 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-503-07982-3 , pp. 159-164, here pp. 163f.
  6. ^ Rainer Baasner: Hermeneutics. In: Horst Brunner, Rainer Moritz (Hrsg.): Literaturwissenschaftliches Lexikon · Basic concepts of German studies . 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-503-07982-3 , pp. 159-164, here pp. 163f.
  7. ↑ cf. Ter-Nedden 1987, 32 ff.
  8. ↑ Hirsch 1967, 17 ff.
  9. ↑ Walch 1730, Col. 163.
  10. ↑ a b Ter-Nedden 1987, 33
  11. ↑ Eco 1992.
  12. ↑ Eco 1992, 76 f., 425 ff.
  13. ^ Eco 1992, 51
  14. ^ Eco 1992, 120
  15. ^ Eco 1992, 428
  16. ↑ Eco 1992, 441
  17. ↑ Eco 1992, 47 f.
  18. ↑ Hirsch 1967.
  19. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 18
  20. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 35
  21. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 33, 272
  22. ↑ Hirsch 1967, 8; Hirsch 1972, 23
  23. ↑ Ter-Nedden, 1987, 36 f.
  24. ↑ Schlaffer 1985, 396
  25. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 39; Hirsch 1967, 21
  26. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 34
  27. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 40, 70
  28. ↑ Ibid., 40
  29. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 271 ff.
  30. ↑ Hirsch 1972, 270
  31. ↑ a b Ter-Nedden 1987, 36
  32. ↑ Ter-Nedden 1999.
  33. ↑ Ter-Nedden 1999, 24
  34. ↑ a b c Szondi 1967, 12
  35. ↑ See Ter-Nedden 1987, 38
  36. ↑ Hirsch 1967, 18
  37. ↑ cf. R. Barthes 1970; Kittler / Turk 1977; J. Hörisch 1988.
  38. ↑ Enzensberger 1976.
  39. ^ Sunday 1960.
  40. ↑ Sunday 1980, 18
  41. ^ Gadamer 1960.
  42. ↑ See Schlaffer 1985.
  43. ↑ Jauß 1982, p. 89, cf. Schlaffer 1985, p. 396.

literature

Essays
  • Heinrich Bosse, Ursula Renner (Ed.): Literary understanding . Special issue of the magazine Der Deutschunterricht Vol. 62, Issue 4, 2010, ISSN  0340-2258
  • Lutz Danneberg : Interpretation. Context formation and use of context. In: Siegener Periodicum on international empirical literature. (SPIEL), Volume 9 (1990), Issue 1, pp. 89-130.
  • Hans Magnus Enzensberger : Modest proposal to protect youth from the products of poetry. In: The German Quarterly , Volume 49 (1976), Issue 4, pp. 425-437.
  • Harald Fricke : How many “methods” does literary studies need ? In: Ders .: Literature and literary studies. Contributions to basic questions of an uncertain discipline . Schöningh, Paderborn 1991, ISBN 3-506-73002-9 .
  • Jeremy Hawthorne: Hermeneutics. In: Jeremy Hawthorne: Basic Concepts of Modern Literary Theory · A Handbook . Translated by Waltraud Korb. Francke Verlag, Tübingen / Basel 1994, ISBN 3-8252-1756-6 , pp. 117-122.
  • Hans Helmut Hiebel : Interpretation. In: Ansgar Nünning (Hrsg.): Metzler Lexikon literary and cultural theory. 4th edition. Metzler, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-476-02241-7 .
  • Hans Helmut Hiebel: Psychoanalysis of Kafka's Texts or Psychoanalysis in Kafka's Texts? In: Ders .: Franz Kafka. Form and meaning; Analysis of forms and interpretations of “ Before the Law ”, “ The Judgment ”, “ A Report for an Academy ”, “ A Country Doctor ”, “ The Steersman ”, “ Prometheus ”, “ The Lost One ”, “ The Trial ” and selected aphorisms . Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 1999, ISBN 3-8260-1543-6 .
  • Heinz Schlaffer : Origin, End and Progress of the Interpretation. In: Georg Stötzel (Hrsg.): Older German literature. Newer German literature (German studies - research status and perspectives; Volume 2) DeGruyter, Berlin 1985, ISBN 3-11-010706-6 .
  • Susan Sontag : Against interpretation. In: Dies .: Art and Anti-Art. 24 literary analyzes. ("Against interpretation"). 9th edition. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2009, ISBN 978-3-596-26484-1 , pp. 9-18.
  • Axel Spree: interpretation. In: Harald Fricke u. a. (Ed.): Reallexikon der Deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, Volume 2. 3rd Edition. DeGruyter, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-11-015663-6 (former title Reallexikon der Deutschen Literaturgeschichte ).
  • Emil Staiger : An exchange of letters with Martin Heidegger . In: Ders .: The art of interpretation. Studies on German literary history. 5th edition. Dtv., Munich 1982, ISBN 3-423-04078-5 (reprint of the Leipzig edition 1955).
  • Emil Staiger: The Art of Interpretation. In: Ders .: The art of interpretation. Studies on German literary history. 5th edition. Dtv, Munich 1982, ISBN 3-423-04078-5 (reprint of the Zurich edition 1955).
  • Gisbert Ter-Nedden: Poetry between speech and writing. In: Ders .: On the media history of literature and poetics (book printing and enlightenment; Volume 1). Fernuniversität, Hagen 1999.
  • Gisbert Ter-Nedden: About the return of poetic fictions in interpretations. A case study on literary reception research. In the S. (Ed.): Interpretative procedures in the social and text sciences . Metzler, Stuttgart 1979, ISBN 3-476-00431-7 , pp. 288-299.
  • K. Wölfel: On the current problem of the interpretation of literary works. In: Georg Stötzel (Hrsg.): Older German literature. Newer German literature (German studies - state of research and perspectives; Volume 2). DeGruyter, Berlin 1985, ISBN 3-11-010706-6 .
Books
  • Emil Angehrn : Interpretation and Deconstruction. Studies on hermeneutics . Velbrück Verlag, Weilerswist 2004, ISBN 3-934730-68-X .
  • Roland Barthes : S / Z ("S / Z"). Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2007, ISBN 978-3-518-28287-8 (reprint of the Frankfurt am Main 1976 edition).
  • Heinrich Bosse, Ursula Renner (Ed.): Literary Studies - Introduction to a Language Game . 2. revised Edition Rombach, Freiburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-7930-9603-0 .
  • Lothar Bredella: Understanding literary texts . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-004467-2 (Language and Literature; 106).
  • Peter J. Brenner: The problem of interpretation. An introduction to the basics of literary studies . Niemeyer, Tübingen 1998, ISBN 3-484-22058-9 (concepts of linguistics and literary studies; 58).
  • Henk de Berg, Matthias Prangel (Hrsg.): Interpretation 2000. Positions and controversies . Winter Verlag, Heidelberg 1999, ISBN 3-8253-0807-3 (Festschrift for Horst Steinmetz's 65th birthday).
  • Umberto Eco : The limits of interpretation (“I limiti dell'interpretazione”). Dtv, Munich 1992, ISBN 3-423-04644-9 .
  • Philippe Forget (Ed.): Text and Interpretation . Fink, Munich 1984, ISBN 3-7705-2176-5 .
  • Hans-Georg Gadamer : Truth and Method. Basic features of a philosophical hermeneutics . Mohr, Tübingen 1986.
  • Jürgen Habermas : Knowledge and Interest (Philosophical Library; 589). Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 2008, ISBN 978-3-7873-1862-9 (reprint of the Frankfurt am Main 1967 edition).
  • Eric D. Hirsch: Principles of Interpretation (“Validity in Interpretation”). Fink, Munich 1972, ISBN 3-7705-0632-4 ( UTB ; 104).
  • Jochen Hörisch : The rage of understanding. On the critique of hermeneutics . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1988, ISBN 3-518-11485-9 .
  • Wolfgang Iser : The Range of Interpretation . University Press, New York 2000, ISBN 0-231-11902-X .
  • Oliver Jahraus, Bernd Scheffer (Ed.): Interpretation, observation, communication. Advanced literature and art in the context of constructivism, deconstructivism and systems theory . Niemeyer, Tübingen 1999, ISBN 3-484-64006-5 .
  • Fotis Jannidis u. a. (Ed.): Rules of meaning. On the theory of the meaning of literary texts . DeGruyter, Berlin, 2003, ISBN 3-11-017558-4 .
  • Hans Robert Jauß : Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics. 3. Edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2007, ISBN 978-3-518-28555-8 .
  • Hans Robert Jauß: History of literature as a provocation . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1997, ISBN 3-518-10418-7 .
  • Andreas Kablitz, Helmut Pfeiffer (ed.): Interpretation and reading . Publishing house Rombach, Freiburg / B. 2000, ISBN 3-7930-9259-3 .
  • Tom Kindt, Tilmann Köppe (Hrsg.): Modern interpretation theories . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2008, ISBN 978-3-8252-3101-9 (UTB; 3101).
  • Friedrich Kittler , Horst Turk : Primal scenes. Literary studies as discourse analysis and discourse criticism . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1977, ISBN 3-518-07475-X .
  • Jean-Jacques Lecercle: Interpretation as Pragmatics . Macmillan, London 1999, ISBN 0-333-68522-9 .
  • Hans Lösener: Between word and word. Interpretation and text analysis . Paderborn 2006, ISBN 978-3-7705-4235-2 .
  • Jürgen Schutte : Introduction to literary interpretation. 5th edition. Metzler, Stuttgart 1993, ISBN 3-476-15217-0 (Metzler Collection; 217).
  • Hans-Georg Soeffner (Ed.): Interpretative procedures in the social and text sciences . Metzler, Stuttgart 1979, ISBN 3-476-00431-7 .
  • Axel Spree: Critique of Interpretation. Analytical studies on literary theories critical of interpretation . Schöningh, Paderborn 1995, ISBN 3-506-73007-X (plus dissertation, University of Bochum 1995).
  • Péter Szondi : Hölderlin studies . With a treatise on philological knowledge . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1984, ISBN 3-518-10379-2 .
  • Werner Strube: Analytical Philosophy of Literary Studies. Studies on literary definition, classification, interpretation and text evaluation . Schöningh, Paderborn 1993, ISBN 3-506-73003-7 .
  • Gisbert Ter-Nedden: Reading Exercises. Introduction to the theory and practice of literary hermeneutics (courage to read; 3). Distance University, Hagen 1987.
  • Johann Georg Walch : Philosophical Lexicon . Thoemmes Publ., Bristol 2001, ISBN 1-85506-895-8 (reprint of the Leipzig 1730 edition).